Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v Dotcom

[2015] NZHC 3349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-001272 [2015] NZHC 3349

BETWEEN

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM

CORPORATION, DISNEY ENTERPRISES INC, PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP, WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT INC.

Applicants

AND

KIM DOTCOM First Respondent

BRAM VAN DER KOLK Second Respondent

RSV HOLDINGS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MEGASTUFF LIMITED) Third Respondent

COATESVILLE TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

MD CORPORATE TRUSTEE LIMITED Fifth Respondent

MONA DOTCOM Interested Party

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Interested Party

Hearing:

18 December 2015

Appearances:

M C Sumpter and L L Fraser for Applicants
S L Cogan and H Wild  for First Respondent
L L C Cooney (excused) for Second Respondent
A R B Barker and A J Steele for Fourth Respondent

D J Boldt and A Dixon for Interested Party (Commissioner) M J Gavin for Recording Industry

J E M Lethbridge for Custodians

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP & ORS v DOTCOM & ORS [2015] NZHC 3349 [21 December

2015]

Judgment:                21 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY [Results]

Result

[1]      On Friday 18 December 2015 I heard an urgent application by Mr Dotcom for an order varying the freezing order over his assets.  The purpose of the variation was to enable Mr Dotcom to use 5H the Prom, Coatesville as security for personal borrowings of $737,290.   Mr Dotcom wishes to on-lend the money to Coatesville Trustee Company Ltd (CTSL) so that it can participate in a Mega Limited rights issue which closes on 22 December 2015.

[2]      At the conclusion of the hearing I indicated that I would give a judgment advising the result of the application, with my reasons to follow next year.  This I now do. The application is dismissed.

[3]      In addition, CTSL sought an order that the film studio applicants be required to give an extended undertaking as to damages that would replace the undertaking given when the substantive application was originally made.  That application is also dismissed.

[4]      I was not addressed on the issue of costs.   I will allow for the filing of memoranda on that issue when I give the reasons for my decision.

Suppression order

[5]      During the hearing reference was made to evidence regarding Mega Limited. Because of the possible commercial sensitivity of some of that information I made an order suppressing publication of any commercial details relating to Mega itself,

its operations and the forthcoming rights issue.

P Courtney J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 21 December 2015 at 1.00 pm

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………